2 Players - 4 characters needed [Archive] - Wizards Community

2 Players - 4 characters needed [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
VanRiper
10-28-05, 03:09 PM I currently have 2 players in my group and the number doesn't look like it's going to increase anytime too soon. To help balance them out, I added a cleric (primarily healer) and a fighter (tank) NPC and am about to take them through the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (using the 3.5 update). Is this the way other DM's would do it - upping the group to make them four characters for this adventure? Has it worked out better for others to just (1) assign the players one or both of the NPC's, (2) have them each create another PC and do away with the NPC's or (3) keep it as is or (4) something else?

Thanks for any advice/suggestions :)
jokem
10-28-05, 03:23 PM I currently have 2 players in my group and the number doesn't look like it's going to increase anytime too soon. To help balance them out, I added a cleric (primarily healer) and a fighter (tank) NPC and am about to take them through the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (using the 3.5 update). Is this the way other DM's would do it - upping the group to make them four characters for this adventure? Has it worked out better for others to just (1) assign the players one or both of the NPC's, (2) have them each create another PC and do away with the NPC's or (3) keep it as is or (4) something else?

Thanks for any advice/suggestions :)

Some GM's do not like to do this, but I have always been fond of allowing
a player to take more than one character. If each of the two players takes
two, then you have four and do not have to have the issue of role playing
two NPC's as well as the other things a GM has to do.
olshanski_home
10-28-05, 03:57 PM I have always been fond of allowing
a player to take more than one character.This is what we always did in 1st edition. This is how I do it in 3rd edition. In recent past, I've seen posts that say "never never never never ever let a player play 2 characters at once". So, you may see some complaints, but it is far more fair to have each player with 2 characters than the DM running the game and running 2 characters, and each player running only 1 character.
Edrick_Malichi
10-28-05, 04:00 PM I have to agree - if you must have more than 2 characters then let each player run 2 each.

Personally, I've been using the gestalt rules for such situations. It's a little wierd to get use to, and the characters arn't actually as good as 2 PCs, but it's an alternative non-the-less.
VanRiper
10-28-05, 04:05 PM I thought about gestalt, but both players are being converted (by me) from AD&D (second edition I guess that's called) to 3.5 so I didn't want to throw that at them as well. They are both picking up the massive changes pretty quickly and I am thinking more and more that I'll allow them to have 2 characters each once I know they have their feet wet with the rules.
imperialjunkie
10-28-05, 04:08 PM I'm actually curious to hear some arguments of why allowing players to have 2 PCs is bad. It seems to be the same as a PC having a cohort. If anyone could give some reasons against it would be great.
Illion the Red
10-28-05, 04:20 PM I'm actually curious to hear some arguments of why allowing players to have 2 PCs is bad. It seems to be the same as a PC having a cohort. If anyone could give some reasons against it would be great.

Devil's Advocate time as I would be in favor of the players playing two PCs, but here goes:

With the player's attention divided between two characters, one character will inevitably be the primary and the other be the secondary, relegated to little more than a player-controlled NPC for all intents-and-purposes.

Metagaming is nearly impossible to avoid when running two characters in situations in which one character knows something and the other does not.

(Yes, they are weak, but that's the best I could come up with off the top of my head).
Edrick_Malichi
10-28-05, 04:33 PM Devil's Advocate time as I would be in favor of the players playing two PCs, but here goes:

With the player's attention divided between two characters, one character will inevitably be the primary and the other be the secondary, relegated to little more than a player-controlled NPC for all intents-and-purposes.

Metagaming is nearly impossible to avoid when running two characters in situations in which one character knows something and the other does not.

(Yes, they are weak, but that's the best I could come up with off the top of my head).

I can add to it :D

I will start by saying that there are people who can role-play two different lasting characters and keep all of their facts straight.

However, I see these players as an exception, not representing the norm.
If a player has two PCs they will tend to merge the two. This is just another way of looking at thebolded text above - players will treat the 2 PCs as one (which is why I suggested just going for gestalt). I read the druidic script on the scroll. 2 second later I will disarm the magical trap. Usually as a result one of the players says something and the DM nor the PCs know who said it (unless they have a clear sign as to who is talking, like slurs, motions, whatever... other than "So-and-so says...")

Sort of a spin-off: While some people enjoy talking to themselves having a player run 2 PCs sort of robs the interaction the PC can possibly have. The player might be running a relaxed, orange wearing knight while the other PC he is running is an orange-hating rogue. It's no fun to playfully tease yourself.

To me it just ruins the suspension of disbelief enough to be distracting.

Once again, I'm sure there are people out there who can handle it well.
Phrennzy
10-28-05, 04:34 PM I like limiting the players to one PC each, simply for ROle-playing reasons.

In 2nd ed, we had what we called "secondary PCs". Everyone had 2 PCs, but really, the 2nd guy was less developed.

With 3rd ed, since it is constructed for 4 PCs, and I had 4 players, I said, "1 per person."

Now that we are down to 3 players, they still only get 1 PC each, because the Druid has a Bear Companion and the Wizard is about to get his familiar back, AND the PCs are high power.

If we had only 2 players, as the OP did, I would offer the 2 PCs per player idea. I would also tell the group that I can tailor encounters/adventures to be fun and survivable with only 2 people.

I feel that you can adapt to any situation.

I also feel that 2 PCs per person ends up with 2 PCs who think and act exactly alike, and always take the side of the other PC they share a player with.
celtredleg
10-28-05, 04:56 PM I have always allowed more than one PC per player, from as far back as pre-ADD. I have kept that through 1st ed ADD through 3.5. It works as good as the players useing it. Some can handle 3-4 PCs. Of course we have all had players that cant play one very well.

I tend to run fairly leathal games, and like the second pc around so that when the other one gets killed/stoned/paralized/poisoned/diseased, or what ever other nastiness I dump on them. That way the player isnt done for the evening until they can fix whatever is wrong.
masterclif
10-28-05, 05:58 PM I've got this problem in an irc game. I have only two players(wierd playing times). The group is devoid of magic casting abilities. So far, the game has gone great. They have to think more about using their enviroment to their advantage, but they like it.

I am firmly against having any DM run npc's in the party though. It always seems to come out with the dm's npcs are greater then everything else, and when theDM doesn't want his npc to find something, he doesn't have the npc roll a check. This isn't so bad except when the DM doesn't let the players run checks either.
StarkLord
10-28-05, 06:12 PM I also have only 2 players in my group and until recently I've been running 2 NPC's myself to bring the number to 4. Big mistake. I've decided to kill off one NPC as he never got the attention he deserved. And the other NPC will only make cameo appearances from now on.

I've also decide to offer my players the option of hiring cohorts to help to go adventuring with them. They would be secondary PCs who follow directions and don't speak out in group decisions. And, interestingly enough, I call the organization offering the individuals for hire "The Order of the Red Shirts". Oh, and they could also die quite easily as well. :evillaugh

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
VanRiper 10-28-05, 03:09 PM	I currently have 2 players in my group and the number doesn't look like it's going to increase anytime too soon. To help balance them out, I added a cleric (primarily healer) and a fighter (tank) NPC and am about to take them through the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (using the 3.5 update). Is this the way other DM's would do it - upping the group to make them four characters for this adventure? Has it worked out better for others to just (1) assign the players one or both of the NPC's, (2) have them each create another PC and do away with the NPC's or (3) keep it as is or (4) something else? Thanks for any advice/suggestions :)
jokem 10-28-05, 03:23 PM	I currently have 2 players in my group and the number doesn't look like it's going to increase anytime too soon. To help balance them out, I added a cleric (primarily healer) and a fighter (tank) NPC and am about to take them through the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (using the 3.5 update). Is this the way other DM's would do it - upping the group to make them four characters for this adventure? Has it worked out better for others to just (1) assign the players one or both of the NPC's, (2) have them each create another PC and do away with the NPC's or (3) keep it as is or (4) something else? Thanks for any advice/suggestions :) Some GM's do not like to do this, but I have always been fond of allowing a player to take more than one character. If each of the two players takes two, then you have four and do not have to have the issue of role playing two NPC's as well as the other things a GM has to do.
olshanski_home 10-28-05, 03:57 PM	I have always been fond of allowing a player to take more than one character.This is what we always did in 1st edition. This is how I do it in 3rd edition. In recent past, I've seen posts that say "never never never never ever let a player play 2 characters at once". So, you may see some complaints, but it is far more fair to have each player with 2 characters than the DM running the game and running 2 characters, and each player running only 1 character.
Edrick_Malichi 10-28-05, 04:00 PM	I have to agree - if you must have more than 2 characters then let each player run 2 each. Personally, I've been using the gestalt rules for such situations. It's a little wierd to get use to, and the characters arn't actually as good as 2 PCs, but it's an alternative non-the-less.
VanRiper 10-28-05, 04:05 PM	I thought about gestalt, but both players are being converted (by me) from AD&D (second edition I guess that's called) to 3.5 so I didn't want to throw that at them as well. They are both picking up the massive changes pretty quickly and I am thinking more and more that I'll allow them to have 2 characters each once I know they have their feet wet with the rules.
imperialjunkie 10-28-05, 04:08 PM	I'm actually curious to hear some arguments of why allowing players to have 2 PCs is bad. It seems to be the same as a PC having a cohort. If anyone could give some reasons against it would be great.
Illion the Red 10-28-05, 04:20 PM	I'm actually curious to hear some arguments of why allowing players to have 2 PCs is bad. It seems to be the same as a PC having a cohort. If anyone could give some reasons against it would be great. Devil's Advocate time as I would be in favor of the players playing two PCs, but here goes: With the player's attention divided between two characters, one character will inevitably be the primary and the other be the secondary, relegated to little more than a player-controlled NPC for all intents-and-purposes. Metagaming is nearly impossible to avoid when running two characters in situations in which one character knows something and the other does not. (Yes, they are weak, but that's the best I could come up with off the top of my head).
Edrick_Malichi 10-28-05, 04:33 PM	Devil's Advocate time as I would be in favor of the players playing two PCs, but here goes: With the player's attention divided between two characters, one character will inevitably be the primary and the other be the secondary, relegated to little more than a player-controlled NPC for all intents-and-purposes. Metagaming is nearly impossible to avoid when running two characters in situations in which one character knows something and the other does not. (Yes, they are weak, but that's the best I could come up with off the top of my head). I can add to it :D I will start by saying that there are people who can role-play two different lasting characters and keep all of their facts straight. However, I see these players as an exception, not representing the norm. If a player has two PCs they will tend to merge the two. This is just another way of looking at thebolded text above - players will treat the 2 PCs as one (which is why I suggested just going for gestalt). I read the druidic script on the scroll. 2 second later I will disarm the magical trap. Usually as a result one of the players says something and the DM nor the PCs know who said it (unless they have a clear sign as to who is talking, like slurs, motions, whatever... other than "So-and-so says...") Sort of a spin-off: While some people enjoy talking to themselves having a player run 2 PCs sort of robs the interaction the PC can possibly have. The player might be running a relaxed, orange wearing knight while the other PC he is running is an orange-hating rogue. It's no fun to playfully tease yourself. To me it just ruins the suspension of disbelief enough to be distracting. Once again, I'm sure there are people out there who can handle it well.
Phrennzy 10-28-05, 04:34 PM	I like limiting the players to one PC each, simply for ROle-playing reasons. In 2nd ed, we had what we called "secondary PCs". Everyone had 2 PCs, but really, the 2nd guy was less developed. With 3rd ed, since it is constructed for 4 PCs, and I had 4 players, I said, "1 per person." Now that we are down to 3 players, they still only get 1 PC each, because the Druid has a Bear Companion and the Wizard is about to get his familiar back, AND the PCs are high power. If we had only 2 players, as the OP did, I would offer the 2 PCs per player idea. I would also tell the group that I can tailor encounters/adventures to be fun and survivable with only 2 people. I feel that you can adapt to any situation. I also feel that 2 PCs per person ends up with 2 PCs who think and act exactly alike, and always take the side of the other PC they share a player with.
celtredleg 10-28-05, 04:56 PM	I have always allowed more than one PC per player, from as far back as pre-ADD. I have kept that through 1st ed ADD through 3.5. It works as good as the players useing it. Some can handle 3-4 PCs. Of course we have all had players that cant play one very well. I tend to run fairly leathal games, and like the second pc around so that when the other one gets killed/stoned/paralized/poisoned/diseased, or what ever other nastiness I dump on them. That way the player isnt done for the evening until they can fix whatever is wrong.
masterclif 10-28-05, 05:58 PM	I've got this problem in an irc game. I have only two players(wierd playing times). The group is devoid of magic casting abilities. So far, the game has gone great. They have to think more about using their enviroment to their advantage, but they like it. I am firmly against having any DM run npc's in the party though. It always seems to come out with the dm's npcs are greater then everything else, and when theDM doesn't want his npc to find something, he doesn't have the npc roll a check. This isn't so bad except when the DM doesn't let the players run checks either.
StarkLord 10-28-05, 06:12 PM	I also have only 2 players in my group and until recently I've been running 2 NPC's myself to bring the number to 4. Big mistake. I've decided to kill off one NPC as he never got the attention he deserved. And the other NPC will only make cameo appearances from now on. I've also decide to offer my players the option of hiring cohorts to help to go adventuring with them. They would be secondary PCs who follow directions and don't speak out in group decisions. And, interestingly enough, I call the organization offering the individuals for hire "The Order of the Red Shirts". Oh, and they could also die quite easily as well. :evillaugh